Search

03 May 2015

145 Writers Against Freedom of Speech

Following the lead of Francine Prose, Michael Ondaatje, Peter Carey and Teju Cole, the 145 writers below signed a letter protesting the PEN award for "courage and freedom of expression" to Charlie Hebdo, the French satirical magazine whose staff was massacred by Islamists in Paris in January.

We "don't believe in censoring expression" they write, BUT we are against "rewarding" "expression that violates the acceptable".

Violates the acceptable? What can this possibly mean? In this exclusive interview, the Letter explains itself.

Q&A with a Letter

a Paris Writers News interview

___

PWN: What do you mean by "expression that violates the acceptable"?

Letter: It is expression that might offend someone who we consider to be "marginalized, embattled and victimized".

"'Marginalized, embattled and victimized?' Sounds like you're talking about the French cartoonists who were murdered by Islamists. Being dead - that's pretty f-ing victimized, isn't it?

No, that's not it. According to our high-minded 145 writers, the victimized are "a population that is shaped by the legacy of France’s various colonial enterprises, and that contains a large percentage of devout Muslims, Charlie Hebdo’s cartoons of the Prophet must be seen as being intended to cause further humiliation and suffering."

But wait! Even the most ignorant have heard by now that Charlie Hebdo was a practitioner of "“equal opportunity offense", right? That they were even more offensive, if possible, to the Pope. (Just spend a couple minutes with devout French Catholics and you'll know what I mean.)

Yes, but that is no excuse. Because (as Orwell could not have said better himself) "in an unequal society, equal opportunity offence does not have an equal effect".

Well obviously. Some people get murdered for joking around. But that's not what your 145 meant.

No. They meant: Some targets of mockery are OFF LIMITS!

Off limits? But why? What's wrong with satirizing religious fundamentalism as intolerant and violent? (the cartoonists' murder kind of proved their point, non?)

Because: "Power and prestige are elements that must be recognized in considering almost any form of discourse, including satire."

Really? But what about people with guns who scare the crap out of people with pens? Don't they have power?...

Nuh Uh. In the correct version, they can only be "victimized".

Tell me, what is one supposed to do with the inconvenient fact that the murderers, not just in the Charlie Hebdo massacre but in the Vincennes, Toulouse, Copenhagen and many other murders, all came from this population which, according to the 145, is "victimized"? Are we not allowed to say that either?

"Our concern," say the correct-thinking 145, "is that, by bestowing the Toni and James C. Goodale Freedom of Expression Courage Award on Charlie Hebdo, PEN is not simply conveying support for freedom of expression, but also valorizing selectively offensive material: material that intensifies the anti-Islamic, anti-Maghreb, anti-Arab sentiments already prevalent in the Western world."

So the 145 are not really upset about offending the religious? They're worried about fanning anti-Arab sentiments in the Western world?

That's what the 145 says in their letter.

Well I got news for you: it wasn't the cartoons that did it. It was the F-ing murder of the cartoonists! A lot of people think that's unacceptable!

Well if the cartoonists hadn't been offending people with guns they wouldn't have been murdered in the first place!

Isn't that the reason for the PEN Award? That they had the courage to publish even though they knew they were threatened by people with guns?

Sure, maybe, but our irreproachable 145 point out they were the wrong people with guns. It should have been the Far Right that murdered the cartoonists. THAT would have been a good story. One we could get behind. But this? This is just...inconvenient.

"The narrative of the Charlie Hebdo murders – white Europeans killed in their offices by Muslim extremists – is one that feeds neatly into the cultural prejudices"

Let me get this right - it is the narrative of the murders that is the problem? Not the murders?

Yes! The 145 are writers. They care about narrative.

So the 145 writers below have taken a stand - not for freedom of expression, not for courage in the face of death threats, not for solidarity with our fellows who have been murdered - but for the concept of the right "narrative"?

Theoretical question. What happens to the narrative if the writers murdered by Islamists are not western?

You mean like Bangladeshi bloggers hacked to death for being secular? Or Pakistani, Saudi, Egyptian or Turkish writers killed or threatened with death for "blasphemy"? Or satirists who go into exile out of fear? Or little girls who...

Yeah, for example

That's not on the list. The 145, you know, they live mostly in America. They know what they know.

Comments

145 Writers Against Freedom of Speech

Following the lead of Francine Prose, Michael Ondaatje, Peter Carey and Teju Cole, the 145 writers below signed a letter protesting the PEN award for "courage and freedom of expression" to Charlie Hebdo, the French satirical magazine whose staff was massacred by Islamists in Paris in January.

We "don't believe in censoring expression" they write, BUT we are against "rewarding" "expression that violates the acceptable".

Violates the acceptable? What can this possibly mean? In this exclusive interview, the Letter explains itself.

Q&A with a Letter

a Paris Writers News interview

___

PWN: What do you mean by "expression that violates the acceptable"?

Letter: It is expression that might offend someone who we consider to be "marginalized, embattled and victimized".